Talk:World War III
The article is being written like a story can Someone edit them? I mean, compared this to those articles such as WW1 and WW2, and other notable battles in wikipedia. they were written professionaly based on 'real life facts', whereas here, is totally written like a story from a 3rd perspective point of view TT﻿ Yes, this is just a poorly written plot summary of Modern Warfare 2. It should be shortened or deleted. ShortRoundMcFly 21:20, June 2, 2011 (UTC) General Cleanup This article is sloppy, words are spelled incorrectly, poor grammar is used, and it seems like the author was trying to tell the events in the form of a story. I'll be making corrections and cleaning up the article soon.Pirateking007 12:03, December 19, 2009 (UTC) Title Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the proper way to title this be the Russo-American War? A bit hasty calling it WWIII as well, we don't know the true scale of the conflict at present. Mechanical 42 06:13, December 27, 2009 (UTC) :The name is also unofficial, as it is never mentioned anywhere in the game. In fact, I'd argue that it's a bit too in-universe in that it summarises the events of the MW2 campaign and not the big picture. --Scottie theNerd 02:47, December 28, 2009 (UTC) ::Fair point, and I doubt we'll get clarification. Eh. Mechanical 42 03:08, December 28, 2009 (UTC) :::I made a point here about how we should go about these articles if we are to keep them. --Scottie theNerd 03:13, December 28, 2009 (UTC) ::: Since the scope of the war is unknown, maybe the page should just be titled "Invasion of the United States" --Kacra 04:29, July 18, 2010 (UTC) ::: I second what Kcra said, lets call it "Invasion of the United States" 22:08, September 7, 2010 (UTC) ::: Proposed rewrite Currently, the article is a fleshed-out version of the events that the player experiences through the game. To make it a proper war article, we need to look at the general strategic scope of the conflict; not just the minutiae of a single soldier or a single squad, unless otherwise significant. I will look into a major overhaul of the article to summarise the main events and omit the individual, specific events as seen through the eyes of Ramirez, Roach or other main character unless it has an impact on the war as a whole. Please let me know if this change is undesirable. --Scottie theNerd 12:44, March 7, 2010 (UTC) :That makes an enormous amount of sense. I concur. IcepacKs 12:52, March 7, 2010 (UTC) Time of year? I discussed on "Wolverines!" that the lighting during the Virginia and D.C. missions suggested it was during daylight saving time. "Wolverines!" was in the hour of 5pm and it was very bright, and "Exodus," around 6:30pm, was just about to start sunset. DST months are March to November, in this case of the year 2016, March 13 to November 6. It starts raining during "Second Sun" and "Whiskey Hotel," and the month that has the most rain during DST would be April. So, it is possible that the Russo-American War and the events of MW2 occur in April 2016. - EvErLoyaLEagLE (4/29/2010) That would make sense. Good Logic. MOBILIZED Hey! Who the hell edited the date of Russo-American war as March 8, 2016? Whoever edit this must give a good evidence why it's started at March 8, not to mention the game didn't say the date, neither 2016 :Removed - like you said, pure speculation. Sgt. S.S. 21:48, March 11, 2011 (UTC) : Gladly accepted. Thanks Supported by Can't it be assumed that the United States would have been supported by NATO, considering they have a defence aggrement and are an offical military alliance? --Kacra 03:14, July 20, 2010 (UTC) :COD isn't real life. We can't assume anything that holds true in reality (such as alliances) would work out the same way in Call of Duty. Unless we have a clear source on what is meant to happen, don't assume anything. --Scottie theNerd 10:04, July 20, 2010 (UTC) : :I'll back you up on that. this is fiction to the point that America and Russia didn't nuke each other first, then go to ground combat and America supported a Russian Government that they don't even like in real life. However, Task Force 141 has mostly NATO soldiers so it would also make sense to conclude that some sort of alliance or support especially from the British and Australians. MOBILIZED ::Without a specific backstory to Task Force 141, we can't presume the nature of the combat group. We only see a few members wearing Canadian, British and Australian flag patches. That's hardly grounds to assume that it is a NATO force -- considering that Australia is not part of NATO. With only three countries effectively associated with TF141, we can't stretch it to cover all NATO countries unless we get a source for it. --Scottie theNerd 05:07, August 30, 2010 (UTC) :: ::Just wondering, where does China stand in all of this? I mean China must have some sort of role in this clash of Titans. 08:29, September 6, 2010 (UTC) :Doesnt call of duty not branch from OTL until 2011? so NATO would definatly support USA, and possibly China being an ally of the Russian Federation would presumably support Russia. 16:19, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :China and Russia are friendly but they arent really allied.Kacra 19:45, September 7, 2010 (UTC) :Sorry, but all those saying that the TF141 dont take part in the war are stupid, remember the nuke price used as a EMP, paralyzing all the eletronics in america. Also, the TF141 if made primarily of British SAS and probably Navy SEALS, as well as Canadians and Australia. and Australia aernt part of nato, but they are partners, i mean it would be abit stupid australia being a treaty for a ocean half way across the earth. :--Morgan-- 20:39, February 3, 2011 (UTC) : : China should be removed as a plausible ally because we know nothing so far in the story and I should also ment the CIS would be a more creditble ally minus the NATO nations. The whole ally thing is crazy thats like saying that Canada is helping since United States and Canada are brother/sister countrys Alertfiend China is not even mentioned in MW2, Nor is it mentioned in any CoD game, the United Kingdom should not even be mentioned as a supporter because TF141 is not the entity of a single country, it just happens to have Americans, Canadians, British and Australian members. British Servicemen have not taken part in the war between Russia and America 02:18, November 15, 2010 (UTC) This subtopic is a speculation for Modern Warfare 2 players. In my opinion, I would say that the OpFor has backed down, maybe because after the 30,000 Marines were dead, I think the additional Marines will have second wave of invasion against the OpFor in the Arabian Peninsula. So now, more likely I would said, the war is between the Russian Ultranationalists vs. USA and with some help from British, Australian and NATO troops. China? I doubt China may join the Ruso-American war. If assuming that China is going to side with the Russians, still, it's not possible that China will attack USA due to few reasons: 1) China act as neutral party who are friends with everybody, including their recent "traditional enemies" Japan and Taiwan. Even if there are numbers of Chinese who are anti-American, the Chinese Communist Party government still wouldn't want to wage war against USA. People can say that, China is playing double game. Besides, they are already starting to betray their traditional allies like North Korea and Iran. 2) China has bought too much of America's debt. If the United States economy crumbles as a result of a Russo-American war, China's investment will be worthless (China already panicked when the value of the dollar fell at the start of the economic decline). Hence, its more likely that China will condemn the Russo-American war, not because of sympathy for Americans, but because they want to save USA so that they could let Americans pay their debt to China. 3) China needs modern technology from USA. Today, China has made the copied American website, for example Google. They also make iPhone, GPS, stealth fighters and many other USA technology. Destroying USA will only paralyze their way of modern life. China cannot survive their lifestyle without America. Hence, you cannot say this is World War III because it only involves two-party warfare. Even if players were fighting against the Brazillian Militias, you still cannot say it was declared as WW3 because it involves a small drug dealer fighting scene. Russia and USA will nuke each other? That's just ridiculous! Just because Russia has authoritarian and aggressive Ultranationalist government, doesn't mean they will use nuke. Nuking each other will end up like Basrah, Iraq (Shock and Awe in CoD4: MW). Like the previous page about Ultranationalists, they are not terrorist. Prove this can be found by playing levels like Wolverines!, Exodus, Off Their Own Accord, Second Sun and Whiskey Hotel where they don't use nukes. Oh, don't forget that the nuke which triggers the EMP was not done by Russians, but done by Captain Price in the Contingency. However, it's possible these are the allies of Russia, which is Serbia, Belarus, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Venezuela, and maybe the uprising Cuba may join the Russo-American war. I doubt if North Korea and Iran may join Russia as their alliance. Myronbeg (Day 4, 2011) :With respect to your opinions, please keep this talk page relevant to the article. Theories on plot and canon belong on the forum pages. --Scottie theNerd 11:10, February 4, 2011 (UTC) : I know. This COD may not happen in the real life, but I'm giving logic fantasy reasons, that's all Extent of the War I would say that Mission Control being able to talk to ISS is a sign that the war is limited to the East Coast. What do you guys think? FinalWish 03:16, December 26, 2010 (UTC) Or both coasts. Mission Control is in Huston Texas.Sniperteam82308 03:57, December 26, 2010 (UTC) Name Why is it called Russo-American War shouldn't it be Russian-American War since it was mostly between those 2 partys? :That's what Russo is... :p 19:04, March 14, 2011 (UTC) : Because the word Russo is a prefix, and we were talking about using prefix words, so it's not appropriate to use Russian-American war. but Russo-American war. This goes same thing as Sino-Japanese war, where people don't use 'Chinese-Japanese war' Belligerents of Russo-American War Okay. Ladies and gentlemen, inside the game we know the people we encounter were Taliban/OpFor Afghans, Brazillians, British, Americans, Canadians, Australians and finally, the Ultranationalist Russians. This discussion actually came from the 'Supported By' discussion. Eastern Europe '- If the Ultranationalists came from many former Soviet Union countries like Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan etc., most probably, they will fully support Russia. I will also include Serbia, because many of the people were nationalists, and seeing this chance to uprising against their government colluding with Americans, they will join the Russian forces (but not joining their country since Serbia was independent). '''Western Europe '- Needless to say, throughout the Cold War history, the West don't like the East communist countries. All NATO will join forces with USA, Great Britain (including Canada and Australia) to fight against the Ultranationalist Russia. However, during the period of 2011 to 2016, one of the Western country may quit from NATO due to unknown future factors. My speculation is Greece or Germany. Don't ask me why, but that's my guess. 'Middle East '- Iran and Syria used to be allies of Russia. But because of the 2011 Middle East protest, mostly likely they will remain neutral. Also, like I said, the OpFor will most likely dissipated by the US forces. However, surely at least 2 to 3 Mideast will join Russia. '''Latin America - The possible country to join Russia will be Brazil (Alex The Red), Venezuela (socialist government) and Cuba (Communist government). However, some like Chile and Colombia may join USA, we don't know. East Asia - '''North Korea will definitely join Russia because they were communist nation. Now, up to everybody's call on my hypothesis. : I think the war is over. Russia invaded the United States in just a couple of days. I doubt they could get all their troops to the frontline. I am guessing all of the enemy soldiers in America is just a small percentage of the Russian military. Besides, as far as we know, the U.S. won the Battle of Washington D.C. With the EMP crippling Russian equipment, they probably retreated. I suppose the only battles going on are in Virginia, where most of the full-scale invasion took place. Saytun 04:25, March 25, 2011 (UTC) : I doubt that. Because based on my speculation, I mean in 2016, the anti-Americans outside the United States will start seizing the opportunity to attack their so called "American puppet' countries and American military bases. Also, by 5 years after CoD4, most of the US-allied countries will start to face civil war with anti-US rebels.,Somebody must have supported Russia because they have a long time foe against USA, such as North Korea, China (may or may not) or even Cuba. And as far as you said, "enemy soldiers in America is just a small percentage of the Russian military", they will be a second wave soon. Americans shouldn't be too happy just because they took over the Whiskey Hotel (White House). Because now in the world, USA is "condemned for making terrorist attack in Moscow", so mostly people will start sympathize the Russians rather than USA, except few NATO and Western countries. How would you say so? Now these is the humorous incident, so if USA has the most powerful military technology in the world such that Russia cannot take over, why you need to destroy the Russian electronics using EMP if USA has powerful weapons? And btw, the Modern Warfare 3 would not be set in after 2016, but prequel which Ghost will lead the role! That's sad... Strength Where did it ever say that the U.S. military had a strength of 3,658,000 soldiers or the Russian Military had a strength of 3,796,000 soldiers? Saytun 04:29, March 25, 2011 (UTC) : Agree. Remove the casualties and strength now! I don't see any evidence saying about these, dude! : JUST USE THE REAL FACT ABOUT THE STRENGTH OF EACH SIDE AND ESTIMATE THE CAUSUALTIES. BLACKJACK ACTUAL 10:38 JANUARY 9, 2012 Revealing the Truth Behind the War I would not guarantee this possiblity, but if the former members of Task Force 141 (Soap, Price and indirectly Nikolai) were somehow able to get ahold of the DSM from either Shadow Company or Makarov's surviving Ultranationalists, the pair could retrieve and connect the DSM to an international computer network. Most likely, the NSA would be the ones to receive the message in the DSM and inform U.S. operatives throughout, let's say, Russia, America and possibly Western Europe. Everyone would hear the truth - the truth about Makarov's massacre, Allen's credibility, and Shepherd's deception, betrayal and manipulation. This would gain America sympathy from throughout the world - those who believed that America authorized and supported Makarov's massacre - and Russia would be left speechless from hearing the truth. Eventually, the former Task Force would no longer be labelled war criminals and all hands would gather to find and destroy Vladimir Makarov. This is just my theory of how events could transpire near the end but it doesn't mean it's true - I'll wait and see what happens. '''Note: Even though Price left a speech regarding their truth before the events of "Endgame", it's possible no-one believed it when they heard it and thought he was lying, as he and Soap were international fugitives during the beginning of Shepherd's inexcusable betrayal. It's also quite possible that the DSM remained preserved and intact by either forces, though they could've easily destroyed it, eliminating all evidence. Created and edited by Adro: signed 11/5/11. Support Adrian aivazian: If Call Of Duty Modern Warfare 2 wants to connect to the real world politics, let me just say this. Despite the Task Force 141 knows the truth, and EVEN if one tune the DSM to the NSA network, it's already too late. A lots of angry U.S. people wants Russians dead after seeing many buildings in D.C. has burned down. Besides, many (including Cpl. Dunn) wants to burn down Moscow too. So they don't really care whether what is the true version, because both sides are already at the war. In real world, in big power world, their war is inevitable to stop. And yes, at least one million Americans and the rest of the worldwide has seen Soap and Price as a terrorist, as if they treat them like Osama bin Laden or Makarov as a lying sly. Telling the truth and convince them to reverse their working is definitely not easy. So conclusionly, it's too late already. The war would be continue. Oh, I almost forgot about Shepherd. Just because Task Force 141 knew the truth about Shepherd's agenda, doesn't mean the whole world would know. The second-in-commander will do their protocol such that covering up his agenda and destroying his evidence, and convince the billions of the people to focus taking down Soap and Price as terrorist. The Americans will mourn Shepherd and also vowed to revenge. Who knows, Sgt. Foley and Cpl. Dunn? 03:52, May 24, 2011 (UTC) This is a response to what you've said: I am not trying to be offensive or rude. I respect your opinions and your statements, and you know how to justify yourself really well, but I think you might've misunderstood my point and you have echoed some of what I've written. Let me explain and clarify what you have said: I am not saying that the war wouldn't continue - it definitely would. Millions of Americans would be vengeful and hateful towards Russia for seeing their country burn. I never even said that the DSM would be intact - I said it could be intact. And the former Task Force operatives would still be on the run and in hiding if the DSM was destroyed. By the way, none of this wouldn't be happening in MW2 because we never see this mission in a level; it would possibly be happening in the later stages of the battle against Ultranationalist Russia, though I didn't mention that in my theoretical article because I never wanted to make any guarantees of such a battle. And hearing that Shepherd was working with Makarov wouldn't slate the Rangers' thirst for vengeance - they would still want to see Russia in ruins, but Russia would probably realize they've made a terrible mistake if they heard it, even though their goals are based on global domination, as is represented in the reveal trailer. They would continue to fight America to their last breath if they were nearly conquered by U.S. military forces. And hearing the message in the DSM (if the DSM was still functional and around) would only enrage the Rangers further as they would come to realize they were being manipulated and put through hell by some glory-hog they thought was their most faithful and trustworthy leader (except Dunn and Price who never thought that). They would condemn Shepherd's name and his dishonour; they would also seek to forget him. They would also want to take the next fight to Makarov, and the former Task Force members would no longer be international fugitives if the world realized they were falsified. In fact, they would be entrusted to lead the way towards Makarov's possible last stronghold. I say this because they saw more than anyone else beyond the frontlines - they witnessed the truth, their betrayal, knew more than the U.S. Army Rangers and NATO and recognized that desperate times call for desperate measures. Price knew this as he created the EMP blast over the Eastern Seaboard, unintentionally destroying the International Space Station but saving Washington D.C. He would explain all of this in another speech after the message in the DSM was heard. Note: Shepherd would no longer be mourned or idolized if America heard in the DSM that he was the architect of the war, and a traitor. America would also gain a worldwide apology (as the world believed that America supported Makarov's massacre at first), and the tables would turn on Makarov if the world learned that he was the second mastermind of the Russian-American War. That is what I meant in my article and it's just a theory. I said I don't want to spoil the intentions of Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games for the single player campaign of MW3. I want to wait eagerly for its release and its creation the way both companies want it. Created and edited by Adro. Signed: 24/5/11. That's quite logic. I wish this world will be that simple as like what you said. Unfortunately, thats a no. Trust me, I've been studied political patterns and human psychology for almost more than 12 years. My point is that if what's gonna happen according to what you said, that will take more than 8 - 13 years or even longer to achieve that. Lots of hardliners from both sides will attempt to seek revenge each other, and accusing each other for killing their citizens. And I'm sorry to say this, that if Russia Ultranationalists found out that Shepherd and Makarov plan this war, then the Russians will misunderstand by using Shepherd (An American general) as their excuse for their evidence that 'America is the imperialist and terrorist' claims. Russians has already accepted that originally Makarov is the terrorist, only that whether US is supporting him. This goes same thing to US, where when same thing they found out, the Americans will claimed that the Makarov was backed by their Ultranationalists government, and their will ignore Shepherd. Trust me, citizens sadly, always must prejudge things based on media, not without using rational thinking in this modern world. And even (sorry to say this again) if the DSM was intact, some Americans and Russians will claim that the DSM information was a fake, while anti-war activist supports the hearing, thus dragging the truth away by continue the Russo-American war. And speaking about Price's EMP, it's not easy. Like I said before, even if one's tell the truth, they will still labelled as 'terrorist', except some anti-government Americans. Maybe you ought to look at Weapon of Mass Destruction in Iraq. What if the WMD really doesn't exist? What if Bush is lying about WMD? What if Bush is installing their pro-American agenda so that they can steal their oil? Well, this is not an insult so please do not say Im a bias. Also, never forget about Katyn massacre in Russia too. If you really want to know the real world logistic politics, you gotta go deep through the patterns before saying such simple statement like you said. And again, this is not bias or sarcastic towards your comment. Just a reminder for you only. In my opinion, although I see the texture and the graphics of COD4 and COD6: MW2 is 56% fake because there are some bodies are supposed to explode into pieces, like the one in 'The Only Easy Day... Was Yesterday' in Modern Warfare 2, but the Modern Warfare director Jason West was right about almost everything and his story. COD is not true, but it's quite logic. Watch out it can happen exactly in our real life, but with different factions and leaders. I have remember that at one time in 2008, a lot of people argued with me that the Russians will find out that the Imran Zakhaev is a terrorist and Ultranationalists is killing people. But I have told them such that, 'Thats' a no, kiddo. It won't be easy. You think killing Imran Zakhaev means the world will be peace? Wrong! You shall see Modern Warfare 2.' And guess what? It REALLY came true, only that I don't expect extremist Makarov will be a real terrorist and I NEVER expect war can really escalate into Washington D.C., it's like 'OMG!!! The White House???'. (although I predicted that one day a supporter will become the leader and maybe they will just strains their diplomatic relations). U.S and the West labelled Zakhaev as terrorist, but after the Russian Loyalist were overthrown prior to the end of Second Russian Civil War, they consider him as a matryr. Basically people's mind's momentum is just too high and getting higher and higher. Meaning, once doing this and that, there was no going back. WEll, can't talk much. Leave your post asap. I got things to do. Like you said, wait for MW3 and see the results. And like you, this is just my theory. I could be wrong, or I could be correct. Bottomline, it's all theory. 14:45, May 26, 2011 (UTC) That actually makes a lot of sense; I never thought of it that way. Because I've watched so many films I believe in miracles and redemption. I was merely speculating, as you know, but what you wrote makes sense. And no, I didn't think your comment was biased or sarcastic, I was simply justifying my opinions. And we will both wait for the incredible release of MW3. In fact, I think about it every day, though I should stop before my brain goes into overload. I just wanted to reply and commend you on your second response. I even mentioned in my first response you have great justification skills, but I wasn't clear in my article because I never wanted to be: I don't want the singleplayer campaign of MW3 to be created on my behalf, only on the behalf of Infinity Ward and Sledgehammer Games. And thanks for acknowledging that my article was logical. Created and edited by Adro. signed: 27/5/11''.'' It's actually a good start to learn about history and politics. If you are coming to such advance and realistic patterns of politics, this is how you need to study and learn. You have witnessed yourself that in the trailer, the NY city was attacked. So like what I predicted before mw3, where the war will be worsen, maybe new York city. And I never expect it can go as far as western Europe. Besides, by 2016, the anti-American and anti-west is rising and so do nationalism. Tensions were getting higher and higher during the second cold war. This is why they will never stop. Have you heard what Albert Einstein says "I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stone" ? 16:08, May 27, 2011 (UTC) World War III Hello there. It seems like there are going to be a World War III. I'm proposing the creation of new article called "World War III". Any agreements or oppositions? 15:05, May 26, 2011 (UTC) Table's Casualties section Hello, please delete the "USS Nimitz CVN-68 (as seen in debut trailer around 1:13)" text under the United States' casualties. There are no evidence to support this despite watching trailer. Evidence must be found out so that it can be place here. Thank you. And always make sure to bold the 'Clockwise from top-left' caption on it. It makes it clearer for the viewer to see. 06:14, May 27, 2011 (UTC) US's Side factions I think you should put alongside the US, France, UK and Germany something like "NATO Allies". I mean, they did put these 4 as they're global powers, but this is personal here. Put NATO alongside US instead :P Pedro9basket 10:24, May 28, 2011 (UTC) Information about the war Well,here is for me what would be the extended Third world war Date:2016 2022 Result:Coalition victory,Ultranasionalist goverment ousted,Loyalist goverment put back Places:America,Europe,Asia,Middle East,Africa,Pacific islands,Atlantic Sides:Coalition,Russian Alliance,The resistance(A group formed by guerrillas,militias,Rebel groups,etc),The Century army(A organisation formed by 3 PMCS:Vlad Industries,Shadow Company and SEPRAN Corp) and Makarov army Coalition members: NATO UN EU G7 Pacific union USA UK Italy France Germany Brazil Mexico Norway Spain Canada South Korea Japan Greece Taiwan Argentina Chile El Salvador Venezuela Portugal South Africa Egypt INTERPOL etc. Russian Alliance members: Russia China North Korea Cuba Vietnam Bolivia Ecuador Bulgaria Iraq Poland Hungary Serbia Somalia SCO Argelia Etc. The Resistance members: African militia People liberation army of Europe Asian rebels Colombian FARC America Insurgents Russian Zadvesk(a paramilitary group) etc. Casualties: Coalition:41,000,000 Russian alliance:50,000,000 The resistance:49,000,002 The Century army:34,500,100 Makarov army:52,000,000 Lot of redundancy in the countries list; most of them come under the conglomerates anyway. 22:31, May 29, 2011 (UTC) Boring and pointless so-called 'extended world war iii'. There was no such evidence saying that. And besides, if u r going to look at both side factions, u might wanna consider thinking that some countries will defect to the others. 15:08, May 30, 2011 (UTC) Where did the other countries come from? Where did you find these names? 19:57, September 4, 2011 (UTC) small add i see in the infobox, it says only french army, but it should be GIGN or National Gendarmerie Intervention Group. just a small detail. [[User:Zombie_dropper|'Zombie Dropper']]Talk 21:10, May 31, 2011 (UTC) Chances of Winning The Russians are like the nazis all over again. The managed to successfully invade the entire eastern sea board within hours. The only reason why U.S troops managed was because of the EMP and the surviving elements of Colonel Marshall's Regiment and Hunter Company. Then the Russians invade the Europe and manage to advance as far as Poland and France. BLACKJACK ACTUAL 10:38 JANUARY 9, 2012 Does Russia think it can take on 4 of the biggest NATO countries? How powerful is the Ultranationalist group? If one NATO country is attacked, all NATO countries are supposed to respond and everyone will be against Russia, unless they have allies. [[User:Bioniclepluslotr|'Bioniclepluslotr']] 03:31, June 3, 2011 (UTC) In reality, Russia couldn't hope to win a war against the United States, let alone the most powerful members of NATO. There are probably enough civillian gun owners in the United States to fight Russia to a standstill. In Modern Warfare 2, Soap said that the rest of the world wouldn't come to America's aid if Russia attacked, so who knows why Germany, France and England ended up fighting Russia. Perhaps russia will recieve assistance from the Peoples Republic of China, that would be a fairer fight. Jokebox1996Advanced 04:19, June 6, 2011 (UTC) Rusophobic bullshit. Americans are the real agressors - US Army is the nazi Wermacht reincarnate. Anon? You just lost this argument. 21:39, June 16, 2011 (UTC) 1.Russia is the largest country in the world and trains their troops better 2.Germany, france and UK arnt even on the list of the 40 largest countries in the world the two largest of NATO is Canada and USA 3.Alot of countries have grudges against USA 4.NATO says all the members help in defense not offense plus 4 countries being attacked that would be 7 countries per and most of them barely have a military 5.Most of Russia's allies have large militarys and not in NATO. 22:20, September 25, 2011 (UTC) You know who tops the list for military spending? The United States. Then China, then France, then the United Kingdom. Russia placed fifth. Geographic area doesn't enter into it. Also, various Afghan militiamen have described US Army leg infantry as having the same level of training as the Spetsnaz they fought against in the '89 war. 22:24, September 25, 2011 (UTC) The U.S Military budget is over 600 billion and the Russian budget is less the 60 billion.BLACKJACK ACTUAL 10:38 JANUARY 9, 2012 "Does Russia think it can take on 4 of the biggest NATO countries?" and that is Afghan Militiamen have they been trained to that extent in 1989 22 years ago also that stat is messured in US dollars not their own 22:37, September 25, 2011 (UTC) anyways no one knows who will or would win in RL OK, you want to talk manpower? America has the second largest military in terms of actively serving personnel, after China. 22:42, September 25, 2011 (UTC) Russia has an army of little more over 350,000 regulars and the the U.S has over 800,000 including the army National Guard, the U.S has over 203,000 men plus 50,000 reservist, the U.S Navy is the second largest and 1st being China. BLACKJACK ACTUAL 10:48 JANUARY 9, 2012 Neither Russia nor America would win a war against the other wether or not NATO or the CIS or whatever country or organization joins in the fight. The reason neither would win is because both nations are too damn big and too damn populated. I say this as an American who has consistently looked into the military and economic factors of a conflict such as this. It doesn't matter that the US has the third largest military on earth after China and India or that Russia has the fifth largest military on earth behind North Korea, which is very surprising to me still even though I found that out last year in 2011. No one could beat America or Russia for the above reasons and the same goes for China, India, Brazil, and probably for Canada due to being second largest country on earth even though their military is a few hundred thousand, and probably Australia due to being largest island on earth even though military is something like same number as Canada. In the case of America and Brazil, this would result in disunity in the Western Hemishphere and the OAS and economic catastrophe for the Americas largest economies which neither side wants; America and Canada fighting would cause disunity in NATO and the OAS and economic catastrophe since they are each others largest customer; China and America are too economically interdependent upon each other since China needs cash and somewhere to sell its stuff and continue economic and military spying upon us Americans, which is a sign of cowardice, and America needs China to make all it's stuff even though it breaks all the time and Americans ave forgotten the value of hard work and earned success which is how we became powerful in the first place, also we need to be united when it comes to Pakistan; China and Russia obviously because they wouldn't be united to continue spreading anti-Americanism (I don't know which country to back: Russia, a fake democracy where no one wants the opportunity to join NATO, which I'd love, and let former Soviet countries like Georgia govern themselves, or China where there's no faking about their Communist regime and doesn't want to settle things peacefully concerning the South China Sea, and for some reason, where the daily persecution of Tibetans goes unanswered and has no watch from anyone even though they remain peacefully protesting and haven't resorted to terrorism yet the Palestinians get the world's sympathy and the occasional favor of the UN (Useless Nations) despite active terrorism since day one; America and India would be so busy fighting, Pakistan and Islamist militants would take advantage and strike at India and America, China may get involved but unlikely due to their own annoyance with Pakistan; China and India need to be united on dealing with Pakistan or it'd just be repeats of the 1950's and 60's cross-border raids by both countries; Russia and India are too heavily allied and economically and militarily dependent on each other; Australia and America are same reason as Russia and India; Canada and Australia same reason as Russia and India; Brazil and China are too economically dependent on each other, same with Russia. Sorry if I missed any or got carried away, I have a tendency to do so. I am anon 76.160.whatever it is. Sorry I don't remember. more serious war Okay now this is serious,i mean,how could the Third World War will be simply fought by the US,UK,France and Germany and Ultranationalist Goverment and the Ultranationalist cell,for the good guys you should add more allies like Italy,South Korea,Japan,Australia,etc,that should make sense!, and for the bad guys the Russians should be helped by its allies as well(China,North Korea,Irak,etc),thats a real world war 3 so i suggest that they must add a page which includes the nations that are allied either the Allied Forces or the Russians. And one more thing,HOW could this Third World War being its battlefield simply Eastern United States,Russian far east and Western Europe?! they should add more battlezones like Africa,Asia,Middle East and any other place. Show me the prove where it takes place at Africa, Asia, Middle East? 08:18, July 10, 2011 (UTC) IM saying that its should also take place in these zones! Ira'q' stopped being a possible Russian ally around the time the Hussein regime fell over. 08:33, July 10, 2011 (UTC) And what do you mean good guys and bad guys people of different POV France link Wasn't there a link for the country France before? When I made an edit on this page, the flag of France was there but not the country name. Then I found out that there is no link for any France country or armed forces page. Where does Jacksonville come from? Where does Jacksonville come from? Who got that, and from where? The Bridge from Suspension is based on a bridge from Jacksonville. Though I'm also curious why the France article was deleted. PhantBat 23:17, October 10, 2011 (UTC) Events from The Only Easy Day Was Yesterday/The Gulag/Contingency How much of the Levels The Only Easy Day... Was Yesterday, The Gulag, Contingency should be added to this page? Technically it, and the operation to Kill Makarov is part of the war. PhantBat 23:20, October 10, 2011 (UTC) I agree. Someone should include this information in the "World War III" article, because those were missions that were part of the war happening behind enemy lines, including the operation to terminate Makarov. So, if someone can go to all the trouble of stating that the war also takes place in the Russian Far East, why can't they simply prove it by adding this information? Maybe you (PhantBat) could seek approval from an administrator (if you aren't one already) and ask to have this information included in the article as these events are technically part of the war. I would do it myself, but I don't think anyone would listen to me. That's all I'm going to say. AA 03:34, October 28, 2011 (UTC) Minor Tweek suggestions (Note: I don't know how to become a registered member, so I can not change it myself.) I say we divide the Combatants into 3 groups. We should have America, of course, Russia, and then Makarov's ultranationalist on their own. I also say we under ultranatiuonalist section put (Aided by African Militas in Somlia & Seirra Leone). Then we also add the Russian Loyalists and Czech rebels to American side. For leadership under Russia, we should add the names of the people in the plane with the russian President. (I doubt he'd randomly be in a meeting room with insignifigant people on a trip to a peace talk). Just small edits. Anyone know how to register my account? RobertBennett 21:34, November 9, 2011 (UTC) Me again, I fixed my personal posting troubles, but when I tried to add a 3rd side to the conflict, Makarov's group kinda just poofed. Anyone know how to do a 3 split? RobertBennett 15:36, November 10, 2011 (UTC) Italy/Spain Can someone cite where it says they're part of the conflict? I imagine they were, but I don't remember anywhere saying so. You can see them being attacked in the cut-scene leading to the mission Goalpost, though i don't really get why Switserland is in the combatants box..Darian66 22:10, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Switzerland under combatants Why is Switzerland under combatants? they are like the most neutral country in the world. Could sombody replace them with The Netherlands or another NATO member unlike Switzerland. that would be much more realistic.Darian66 22:15, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Yes, while Switzerland probably would've remained neutral in the conflict, they were attacked. In Goalpost's loading cutscene, it shows "Berne" being attacked, that being the capital of Switzerland, I imagine they're technically in combat with Russia. The Netherlands would probably help, or even get attacked in these events, but it shows no evidence, so we can not add them. All the combatants are there for a reason :) RobertBennett 22:25, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Okay sorry, i deleted Switzerland in a sporadic move, i didn't notice them in Goalpost. Is Ankara or Istanbul attacked? because if not you may need to remove Turkey from combatants... I am not 100% about Turkey. Someone else added it, I'm waiting for a response, in the meantime, I'm double checking cutscenes. I'm about to remove it. You can re-add the swiss if you'd like, or I will later. I'm heading out for dinner with my roomates. RobertBennett 22:32, November 14, 2011 (UTC) Okay i'm not experienced enough to add thing to the box ( hyperlinks and stuff) So sombody ells should re-add the swiss, also is it really necessary to put all the Presidents and Prime ministers in there? it looks a bit overkill..Darian66 22:36, November 14, 2011 (UTC) In the begining of Iron Lady you can see the Netherlands is partly occupied by the Russians, almost all of The Netherlands is conquered except for the capital and some of the cities on the coast. so they should be under comatants. (Turkey is occupied to) 13:22, November 16, 2011 (UTC) :Slight problem with this is that we know these countries were occupied, but not their official stances on the occupation (ie, whether they fought or surrendered), so listing their leaders as necessarily in opposition to the invasion is basically writing fanfiction. We only know the ones we see in the games fought back, and we can assume those did so with the official blessing of their governments. The rest should just be left to a trivia note that they were invaded / occupied but we don't know anything else about it. Evil Tim 11:47, December 26, 2011 (UTC) The infobox's alliances I've made a new page here. I think we should start cutting back the number of allies, so it doesn't look as sloppy. We should keep only ones we fight beside & the cobeligerants. So TF141, Shadow Company, Afghans, Loyalists, America, UK, Germany, France, & czech. Anything else should be moved over to the other page. Once we remove the random ones (Spain, Switzerland, Denmark, etc), we should put that on the list of of allies, just say "View whole list here". But please! Do NOT remove the nation off the list until you put it on the other page, so we don't lose any of them. RobertBennett 22:22, November 16, 2011 (UTC) Western USA Western USA Wasnt attacked........... The DS version of MW3. Nevada & Alaska were, and I can't imagine them getting to Nevada without attacking California or another coastal area. RobertBennett 19:38, November 30, 2011 (UTC) Day vs. Date Please stop changing the date/day of the events. While I don't care one way or another, can you guys settle it instead of changing it? MW2 Dates Either the dates in the missions for MW2 are wrong or the articles are wrong, the days really aren't worth mentioning in this article, only the articles themselves. Zeta1127 of the 89th Legion (talk) 23:25, December 8, 2011 (UTC) Strictly speaking, we only know the dates for the last two missions. Anything else is speculation. And I maintain it's impossible for it to take place over a single consecutive week. 23:35, December 8, 2011 (UTC) Propsed Rewrite This page is supposed to be written like a wikipedia article, we shouldn't be focused on the members of the team, it should be reffered to as just metal. plus, talking about "the player", and "the level begins with", we shouldn't just be making a rewrite of the MW storyline. we should writing this as if it actually happened. As if this was a real war and that we don't know specifics.... Drjuki 03:03, December 15, 2011 (UTC) Switzerland?! Okay, I highly doubt that Switzerland would have participated in the war, due to their tradition of staying neutral in any sort of conflict. Clarification, pl0x? Sgt. S.S. 11:14, December 26, 2011 (UTC) :I've removed all the extra entries for countries that aren't covered in the games; we don't know what, if anything, these countries actually did during the war aside from that Russia invaded them, so putting them down as combatants and allies of NATO (when they could have simply surrendered) doesn't really fit the facts we have available to us. Evil Tim 11:37, December 26, 2011 (UTC) ::Well, I see someone added them back. Let me reiterate; there is no proof in any of the games what the official stance of any of these countries was, or that they sided with NATO. Listing a bunch of presidents and prime ministers who aren't characters and do nothing in the series is utterly pointless. Nevermind the ridiculous bloat of listing individual soldiers in a template that's supposed to be listing factions. Evil Tim (talk) 10:09, September 24, 2012 (UTC) "36th Attack helicopter regiment" This is under German forces and is that deleted wishful-thinking article about there being German Eurocopter Tigers in MW3. There aren't. Evil Tim 10:01, January 16, 2012 (UTC) Incorrect formatting on the header picture's caption The header picture says that the locations are listed in clockwise order. This is not true. Will someone with editing privileges fix it, please? Hk37 Need help? Contact me here! 00:50, January 30, 2012 (UTC) Legooreostudios 00:19, April 30, 2012 (UTC) do you think that russia have attacked southern canadians cities? Hungary and Belgium flag issues Is anyone else having issues their flags, specifically with their browser loading them as "Flag_of_Hungary.svg" and "Flag_of_Belgium_(civil).svg"? --23:34, May 22, 2012 (UTC) Inner Circle Co-belligerent issue I am wondering if this should be. While the Inner Cirlce have no offical alliance with Russia. The story makes it more clear that the Inner Cirlce is at war with both sides but not directly fighting Russia because it wishes to return the Soviet Union and needs Russia to win so they can a nation of their own. Anybody else agree? Units involved in the conflict I did some research about the U.S Army 5th Special Forces Group (Green Berets) and there was a picture of the units structure and I noticed that ODA 595 is under the structure of the 5th Special Forces Group, 3rd Battalion, Charlie Company and that ODA 595 is a real unit and had served in Afghanistan. I believe this should be added to the Units List. Where the heck was the People's Republic of China during this entire third world war? normally they'll be siding with the Ultranationalist Russian regime, and so would Pakistan, Iran, maybe Mexico--(possibly?) and North Korea as well as well. just saying? At least 35,000 French civlians killed